It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why can no one prove a Masonic conspiracy?

page: 24
23
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 




However, I would like to point out that George Washington did become a better man after he became a freemason, and I can think of any number of men for whom the same can be said. It may not be true now, but it certainly was once. In fact, hang it all, there is still work to be done, but Rockpuck is a prime example (and I hope he doesn't mind the mention). The personal growth that I have observed in Rockpuck is tangible and yes he is a work in progress and he still has his moments, but he has grown immeasurably as a person in the time I have been on ATS either way. It may be 'normal' maturing but I also think that Freemasonry is a part of it, so I'll retain a little of my optimism if you don't mind.


Aw shucks you make me blush .. talk'n bout meh immaturity on the forums.. haha..


I have openly admitted in a thread not to recently I consider my self lucky to have "grown up" through Freemasonry in that as I come into my own, being a Freemason and implementing it's philosophies will ultimately HELP shape who I am. Though I am a firm believe men are destined, and while influence can alter the end scenario changes little.

Naturally, I do still like to go off on my tangents.
Don't hate me for who I am.




posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by JoshNorton
It is my personal opinion that the Shriners are often cut from a different cloth than regular Masons. While it is still a requirement that a Shriner be a Master Mason, quite often there are men who join Masonry with the sole goal of becoming a Shriner, not taking the lessons of the Blue Lodge to heart.


I take it that Shriners do go more for the dining and 'networking'?

I find it particularly interesting when certain people don't go any further than initiation, for example the Duke of Edinburgh and LBJ, I don't know why, other than perhaps it appeals to my romantic spirit, that those of questionable morals cannot 'keep up' the pace (so to speak). Innocent that I am, I hadn't really thought of Freemasonry as a means to an end. (No insult meant). Obviously, when I think about it, that is where much of the criticism and insinuations come from - I can be quite thick! But while you're criticised for the 'higher degrees', it may be the lower you are the more, shall we say superficial your association and understanding of the lessons. So the 'antis' would perhaps be better concentrating their attention at the bottom of the scale???


Well, it's a good thing he's NOT a Mason then, isn't it?


I don't really believe he is either, I am kind of playing devil's advocate. BUT, how can you be sure? Perhaps the lodge concerned is too ashamed to mention it? Perhaps its a special CIA lodge that doesn't mix. In reality there is no sure fire way of knowing for definate is there?



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
I have no personal grudge or dislike of Bush, I think the man is a buffoon certainly, but I don't think that he can even be described as a politician, he is a figure head - but that aside he is not a man of good morals in my opinion.


This, to me, sums up the rationale on why I would not be bothered with George Bush being a Mason; it is your opinion. It may be the opinion of others that think he is moral and upright and to think that Sentator Obama is immoral. All the more reason for us not to discuss politics or religion while in lodge.


Absolutely it is my opinion and as such I have no problem whatsoever with you disagreeing with me. It is also open to change, given a persuasive enough argument...

So Politics and religion aside, are you allowed to discuss your work? I know very little about Barack Obama. I have no opinion of him either way. Bush, I have seen a lot of. I don't dislike the man, I feel a little sorry for him at times...but whatever he is, he is the defacto man at the top and he has done nothing to prevent the corruption that is occuring in your country. He did wage aggressive war.
To use Fire's terminology, I am not a 'joiner', and perhaps for the very reason that I could not slap George Bush on the back and call him brother, just I could not to Blair - but damn sure I could take them over my knee and give them a good hiding. It is not to me to say whether he is a good President or not, he is not my President, but I can quite confidently say that at the very least he is a very weak man, and quite possibly a criminal. But that is my opinion.

That said, I do believe in redemption, so perhaps a l'il brotherly love could change him...



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 04:02 AM
link   
I know someone whos in the freemasons.You know what he told me recently about the New world Order?Dont worry about it.Hes exact words were"theres nothing to worry about conspiracy guy!"with a chuckle too!
I believe him.Ive known him for 18 years now and i credit him for keeping me out of trouble with some bad people over the years.
John Mccain 08



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
I sincerely doubt you had an admiration to begin with if you make statements like this. This is exactly the sort of rhetoric used by those who have been looking for a reason to bash an institution "well...I thought it was great, but now I know you guys are just horrible."


Some incredible people have been Freemasons and I find that interesting. Those I admire, I like to know how significant it was to them and how it shaped their lives. But I love human history and while the organisation as we know it, may be fairly modern, the lessons contained are ancient and there is a continuity that is phenomenally interesting (sociologically).

I don't think your horrible just a little less interested in current events. I do not resent your pleasure in it, far from it. I'm not going to bash you, because I like many of you on here, it is nothing personal merely my opinion and my ability to voice it here.


Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
If you had any real like for the institution you would not be easily persuaded by the fact that no - the institution does not line up with your ideology and no - we wouldn't kick George Bush out if he were a mason just because you hate him. If you are that easily swayed, it will be difficult to find many groups you like, as your ideology is very narrowly defined.


I am not a 'joiner' admittedly, I couldn't even manage the Brownies so I accept your point about me. My ideology does not conform to Freemasonry, and vice versa, that doesn't mean though that I think that it should not exist.

I'm not you and you make your own choices. Surely it doesn't bother you what I think? I don't think that you are wrong, just that I couldn't do that and having read the lectures I am quite surprised that someone who broke international law and committed crimes against his own country could be welcomed into masonry. My mistake or misinterpretation.


Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
I find this rather insulting, and it continues your line of rhetoric like this that is condescending at best. Just because an institution doesn't line up with your ideology does not mean its "lost itself" - the worthiness of an institution is not measured by how much you agree with its (lack of) political stances. If you have any evidence of how freemasonry has lost its way, please provide it.


I'm sorry if you find me condescending, but you do labour a point and I certainly didn't intend to insult you.

It is not up to me to provide the balance of proof, it is for you to tell me why you think I am wrong - if you are so inclined, your attacking my position, you're not providing a persuasive argument. Attack is not the only line of defence you know.
Perhaps if you could explain why you would nominate Bush for your lodge? What qualities does he have that would make him a good Freemason? something like that, it may help me to understand your perspective and the wider perspective of freemasonry.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Naturally, I do still like to go off on my tangents.
Don't hate me for who I am.


I couldn't hate someone for simply being young, but you are clearly working on yourself and that is admirable.

I don't believe in destiny, not in the predestination sense anyway. I go with free-will all the way.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
So Politics and religion aside, are you allowed to discuss your work?


Certainly, though I would not be forthright if I said I knew what careers many of the members of the pursue. I know most of the officers because we try to revolve our schedules around meeting nights-which does not always work.


I know very little about Barack Obama. I have no opinion of him either way. Bush, I have seen a lot of. I don't dislike the man, I feel a little sorry for him at times...but whatever he is, he is the defacto man at the top and he has done nothing to prevent the corruption that is occuring in your country. He did wage aggressive war.


I respect your opinion but I would rather not have this thread devolve into another heated political discussion. There are far too many and I do not wish to participate in an additional one so I will refrain from offering my opinion.


To use Fire's terminology, I am not a 'joiner', and perhaps for the very reason that I could not slap George Bush on the back and call him brother, just I could not to Blair - but damn sure I could take them over my knee and give them a good hiding. It is not to me to say whether he is a good President or not, he is not my President, but I can quite confidently say that at the very least he is a very weak man, and quite possibly a criminal. But that is my opinion.


Understood.


That said, I do believe in redemption, so perhaps a l'il brotherly love could change him...


Or if he were in fact a Mason it might have made him a different person all together.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
I take it that Shriners do go more for the dining and 'networking'?
That is my understanding, yes.


But while you're criticised for the 'higher degrees', it may be the lower you are the more, shall we say superficial your association and understanding of the lessons. So the 'antis' would perhaps be better concentrating their attention at the bottom of the scale???
I'm not entirely certain what you're getting at... It's my opinion that the three degrees of the Blue Lodge hold enough concentrated teaching in their ritual for a man to be able to spend his entire life studying and contemplating them. I have yet to read each of the 32 degrees in the Scottish Rite. I will say that the 32° did have a particular resonance with me. They're all allegorical plays, and they each have their own lessons to teach. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the three degrees of the Blue Lodge are superficial though.

I'll agree with you that anyone who claims "higher degrees" are calling the shots, pulling the strings, etc are full of hot air. One can be conferred the necessary degrees from 4 to 32 in a day's work, and the individuals would have to spend their own time actually LEARNING what each of them meant. Whereas to progress from 1 to 2 and 2 to 3, the candidates are tested on their proficiency and required to show that they've at least memorized the teachings, whether they've taken them to heart or not.


I don't really believe he is either, I am kind of playing devil's advocate. BUT, how can you be sure? Perhaps the lodge concerned is too ashamed to mention it?
He didn't become president overnight. If he's been a member for any length of time prior to his running for president, there would have been people who knew about it, perhaps even when he ran for governor of Texas. It would have come out long before he even got to where he is today. If you're accusing the Grand Lodges of lying, then you're on one hand praising the general trend towards morality that Masonry presents, while on the other hand claiming it would intentionally make false statements. I find the truth much easier to defend than lies...

Perhaps its a special CIA lodge that doesn't mix. In reality there is no sure fire way of knowing for definate is there?
If such a lodge existed, it would still have to receive its charter from a Grand Lodge, or it wouldn't be a real lodge. At least not in the eyes of regular Masons. Any group of people can get together and decide to call themselves Masons for whatever reason. They could even download the rituals and try to do them word for word etc. But without recognition and a charter from a Grand Lodge, the majority of the Masonic world would snub them and call them poseurs. They would be entirely isolated, which doesn't help any conspiracy theorist who might think they'd leverage the power of Masonry as a whole to their ends.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 


Thanks for your answers. So what is your feeling on why masons could be in the revolution when the ritual says to be 'true to your government and just to your country'? Do you think this contradicts each other? I would also like to hear any other masons opinion on this question, josh/am/rockpuck/masoniclight. This is interesting to me as the ritual says to do one thing but the masons in the revolution maybe did another. It might not be a conspiracy but I would like someone to explain to me why this might be ok.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by Capozzelli]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Capozzelli
 


They may be Masons, but they are still countrymen, and when they feel that the government has overstepped it's boundaries as a government, they are free to do what they feel is right. It comes down to the person, really.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by RuneSpider
 


So are you saying that you must follow the ritual only to the point when you think it does not apply? Did you also have these words in your ritual when you became a mason? Do you think that there may be a point when you might go against your government or country with force?

[edit on 13-6-2008 by Capozzelli]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


Kilgore I get sort of conflicting messages from what you type. While you are one of the genuine people on here I think who are interested in a conversation and not furthering an agenda (as we often see with those asking "questions" about masons), you are seemingly willing to let a a scenario based circumstance about freemasonry (since Bush isn't in a lodge...our feelings toward him if he was a mason would just be guesses) strongly revert your opinion. The nature of the issue at hand is so small...its just confusing to me I guess, given your previous posts.


I'm not you and you make your own choices. Surely it doesn't bother you what I think? I don't think that you are wrong, just that I couldn't do that and having read the lectures I am quite surprised that someone who broke international law and committed crimes against his own country could be welcomed into masonry. My mistake or misinterpretation.


But thats just it, your blinded by partisanship. No matter your hatred for Bush, the facts of the matter is no international laws have been broken nor any crimes committed. That the Democrat National Committee would have you believe otherwise is irrelevant, as there are numerous judges who join you in your hated for Bush and would take extraordinary glee in doing all sorts of bad things to him...if they could get away with it legally. But as nothing as nothing illegal has gone on, they can't get away with it.

Bill Clinton did actually break the law, whether you agree with the findings or not, he will forever be the 2nd President impeached by the Congress of the United States. However...he was acquitted by the Senate. As such, even though my level of dislike for Bill Clinton probably rivals your feelings towards Bush, I would still welcome Clinton as a member of the lodge. My politics stop at the lodge door, as long as no one has been convicted of anything illegal. Thats the way it should be - and if you truly read the lectures - you would get that from them. Your either perverting the lectures or ignoring the parts about harmony and brotherly love that go beyond politics.



It is not up to me to provide the balance of proof, it is for you to tell me why you think I am wrong - if you are so inclined, your attacking my position, you're not providing a persuasive argument.


Actually it is up to you to prove your claims. I cannot prove something wrong for which I believe does not exist - and you know that. You think there is something about masonry that should line up to your partisan politics and only embrace members as masons who align with that - as I know that is not the case, is hard for me to prove you wrong other than to telling you to read the constitutions again and you'll find nothing about having to align to some sort of narrowly defined political world view to become a mason.

I am not attacking your position, because you can only attack something of substance. I view this as you arguing that Pink Unicorns should become masons. Pink Unicorns don't exist, so I can't attack the assertions - all I can do is simply point out Pink Unicorns are not real.

If we bowed to your partisanship, we would have to bow to all the Republicans who are going to hate Obama when he becomes President - and since we're going to have to start barring every politician who attracts press and disagrees with the politics of the membership, pretty soon we won't have many members left. Such things are not productive to harmony and brotherly love.

I would nominate Bush to my lodge - as I would Clinton (Bill, obviously I can't nominate Hillary), Obama, Edwards, Kennedy and any other number of people in the opposite side of the political spectrum. Why? Because 1) I know they are all male, over 21, and believe in a supreme being, and 2) I know they spend substantial amounts of time trying to improve life in their local communities in different aways (Obama through community activism, Edwards through concentrating on certain issues like poverty, Bush through his support and participation in faith based initiatives that include all faiths, etc.). Regardless of my personal dislike for their politics, they would all make good masons.

Freemasonry is not for everyone. If you are not capable of moving beyond partisanship, its probably not for you. Thats OK...but I wouldn't let it so control your view of every organization that doesn't fit with your ideology has suddenly "lost its way". It lost YOUR way, but your way is not my way.

I must also state I am not a fan of Bush, although I do not buy into media sensationalism and trends - and currently, it is popular to have a seething irreverent hatred for Bush which the mass media has programmed people to do. But regardless of my personal dislike of Bush and his policies...there is no reason why he couldn't be a good mason. But he is NOT, so all of this is speculative.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Capozzelli
 


Just my opinion, but as a student of political science and public administration I know that I am commanded to be true to my government. Government is only really government when it has the legitimate right to use the coercive powers of the state. Legitimacy is what defines an institution of government. If the government does not have legitimacy, then it is no longer the government but is instead something else. As such, I find no problem with the masons in the revolution - their government was no longer legitimate, and I do not find it breaking the oath to do what they did.

I think that was the original intent of the oath, which was written during a time when the word "government" had a more specific meaning. In the common language today we use government to describe any sort of institution which has coercive authority over people, but that isn't truly the meaning of government - it is only government when it has legitimate coercive power.

As such, I find no contradiction.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus


That said, I do believe in redemption, so perhaps a l'il brotherly love could change him...


Or if he were in fact a Mason it might have made him a different person all together.


Politics aside, and in all honesty I was not trying to start a political debate, I think you and I disagree on very little judging by your statement above. You seem fully aware of the power that Freemasonry can have in shaping a man's character.

Otherwise I am a fence sitter. I can't see any harm in freemasonry, I think that the point that Rockpuck made in the debate that by its very nature it cannot be corrupted was highly astute and you can see throughout its history that efforts have been made to corrupt it and they have failed. However I do feel that some of the lessons that are contained within the lectures cannot be taught and therefore the system is open to misinterpretation and abuse from individuals. Which is really what you have reiterated to me. In many respects it may be that it is a victim of its own success, just as in its own way christianity has been and every other well-trodden path to enlightenment.

There are some aspects of the conspiracies surrounding Masonry and the attempts to corrupt it, that do interest me. I find the Clermont degrees episode highly interesting for example, and I find it frustrating that so few of the members on these boards, who are also masons, are willing to look at Freemasonry critically (which does not have to mean criticising), as though it is perfect and above question or at times implying that it isn't even interesting! The immediate response to every attempt to explore the craft and its history or symbology is meant with the defensive and an unspoken sense that only 'brothers' should discuss these things or some such nonsense.

I've kind of lost track of what I am trying to say or my original point. I would just like to talk about these things without it being assumed that everyone has an agenda. It is like walking into a room and the conversation stopping dead sometimes and that is intimidating. And more than anything else it is what kills the quality on this board. I find a good discussion fun (for want of a better word), I am not in it for an argument or to 'win'. I don't consider it a competitive sport and wish a few others felt the same way and let it all hang out a little bit more instead of the seemingly more frequent emotional response or the downright derisive.

All the best



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by JoshNorton
I'm not entirely certain what you're getting at


Me neither, truth be known I'm completely lost and I can't remember for the life of me my original points!

As far as what I meant in terms of superficial I certainly didn't mean it as a reflection of the whole. Take the examples I gave earlier, LBJ and the Duke of Edinburgh, both very prominent people both were initiated (I think) but didn't really take to it. Gerald Ford on the other hand was very committed to Freemasonry and had a very deep sense of moral purpose (which for me is knowing the difference between right and wrong and living by that), so much so that he struggled to accept the Presidency because he would be obliged to pardon Nixon if he did. He got around it and found a way to appease his conscience, by using his intellect and education he outwitted the system by using a presidence of law whereby the acceptance of a pardon was an admission of guilt. I like that. I think that in Gerald Ford's case he was a good man made better, and that some just don't wish to be good.

While Ford may not have ever abused his association to masonry it is possible that others may have or do. And, by my estimation it is most likely those who only have a 'superficial' interest would be those most inclined to exploit it. Hope that is clearer?

Very interesting and helpful explanation into the mechanism of the 'instruction' though.



He didn't become president overnight. If he's been a member for any length of time prior to his running for president, there would have been people who knew about it, perhaps even when he ran for governor of Texas. It would have come out long before he even got to where he is today.


This is an excellent point.



If you're accusing the Grand Lodges of lying, then you're on one hand praising the general trend towards morality that Masonry presents, while on the other hand claiming it would intentionally make false statements. I find the truth much easier to defend than lies...


Not accusing anyone of lying, just of ommitting to speak about it. They would only be lying if they had been asked directly about it and then made a false statement.


Perhaps its a special CIA lodge that doesn't mix. In reality there is no sure fire way of knowing for definate is there?


If such a lodge existed, it would still have to receive its charter from a Grand Lodge, or it wouldn't be a real lodge. At least not in the eyes of regular Masons. Any group of people can get together and decide to call themselves Masons for whatever reason. They could even download the rituals and try to do them word for word etc. But without recognition and a charter from a Grand Lodge, the majority of the Masonic world would snub them and call them poseurs. They would be entirely isolated, which doesn't help any conspiracy theorist who might think they'd leverage the power of Masonry as a whole to their ends.

What if the secret CIA lodge belonged to a CIA or intelligence services secret Grand Lodge from which it receives its charter? Could there be a secret Grand Lodge? Or at least a none-publically acknowledged Grand Lodge?



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
I find the Clermont degrees episode highly interesting for example, and I find it frustrating that so few of the members on these boards, who are also masons, are willing to look at Freemasonry critically (which does not have to mean criticising), as though it is perfect and above question or at times implying that it isn't even interesting! The immediate response to every attempt to explore the craft and its history or symbology is meant with the defensive and an unspoken sense that only 'brothers' should discuss these things or some such nonsense.


I don't know that you lost track of anything!

What you just said is the most succinct and accurate summation of the entire atmosphere here in the Secret Societies Forum, as it relates to discussion of Freemasonry. It's apparent even with a cursory glance at a few threads, and I had encountered the same vibe very quickly after posting here not too long ago. And when you bring up the fact that these observations are indeed correct - and they are (you and I are not insane; we may even be intelligent) - the Masons go right into the motions that you described in the last sentence of the above paragraph.

[Ooooh... get ready for a fight now! Like I care.
...Actually I do - and I'm sick of it. Totally, and utterly sick of it.]


Anyway, thank you for data-mining my brain!

As far as the "Clermont" references in Freemasonry, I would be quite interested to read whatcha got. A lot of pseudo-history has been perpetrated by Masons themselves on this subject, which ties into the Strict Observance, the attempted Catholic-takeover of said rite, and whole conundrum that is the Templar/Stuart Jacobite/Jesuit stream. Here's a level-headed account:


Stuart Jacobite Influence

The seed of the myth of Stuart Jacobite influence on the higher degrees may have been a careless and unsubstantiated remark made by John Noorthouk in the 1784 Book of Constitutions of the Premier Grand Lodge of London. It was stated, without support, that King Charles II (older brother and predecessor to James II) was made a Freemason in Holland during the years of his exile (1649–60). However, there were no lodges of Freemasons on the continent during those years. The statement was undoubtedly made to flatter the fraternity by claiming membership for a previous monarch. This folly was then embellished upon by John Robison (1739–1805), a professor of Natural Philosophy at the University of Edinburgh, in an anti-Masonic work published in 1797. The lack of scholarship exhibited by him in that work even caused the Encyclopedia Britannica to denounce it.

A German bookseller and Freemason, living in Paris, working under the assumed name of C. Lenning, embellished the story further in a manuscript titled "Encyclopedia of Freemasonry" probably written between 1822 and 1828 at Leipzig. This manuscript was later revised and published by another German Freemason named Friedrich Mossdorf (1757–1830).[17] Lenning stated that King James II of England, after his flight to France in 1688, resided at the Jesuit College of Clermont, where his followers fabricated certain degrees for the purpose of carrying out their political ends.

By the mid-19th century, the story had gained currency. The well-known English Masonic writer, Dr. George Oliver (1782–1867), in his "Historical Landmarks", 1846, carried the story forward and even claimed that King Charles II was active in his attendance at meetings—an obvious invention, for if it had been true, it would not have escaped the notice of the historians of the time. The story was then repeated by the French writers Jean-Baptiste Ragon (1771–1862) and Emmanuel Rebold, in their Masonic histories. Rebold's claim that the high degrees were created and practiced in Lodge Canongate Kilwinning at Edinburgh are entirely false.

James II died in 1701 at the Palace of St. Germain en Laye, and was succeeded in his claims to the British throne by his son, James Edward Stuart (1699–1766), the Chevalier St. George, better known as "the Old Pretender", but recognized as James III by the French King Louis XIV. He was succeeded in his claim by Charles Edward Stuart ("Bonnie Prince Charles"), also known as "the Young Pretender", whose ultimate defeat at the Battle of Culloden in 1746 effectively put an end to any serious hopes of the Stuarts regaining the British crowns.

The natural confusion between the names of the Jesuit College of Clermont, and the short-lived Masonic Chapter of Clermont, a Masonic body that controlled a few high degrees during its brief existence, only served to add fuel to the myth of Stuart Jacobite influence in Freemasonry's high degrees. However, the College and the Chapter had nothing to do with each other. The Jesuit College was located at Clermont, whereas the Masonic Chapter was not. Rather, it was named "Clermont" in honor of the French Grand Master, the Duc de Clermont, and not because of any connection with the Jesuit College of Clermont.


Also, if you haven't already, please read The Templar Legend and the Clerics, by the erudite Masonic historian, Alain Bernheim.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
Kilgore I get sort of conflicting messages from what you type. While you are one of the genuine people on here I think who are interested in a conversation and not furthering an agenda (as we often see with those asking "questions" about masons), you are seemingly willing to let a a scenario based circumstance about freemasonry (since Bush isn't in a lodge...our feelings toward him if he was a mason would just be guesses) strongly revert your opinion. The nature of the issue at hand is so small...its just confusing to me I guess, given your previous posts.


This is the problem all over. Stop trying to read so much into it. Don't be so defensive. I am not here to make anyone look stupid, I just want to play!


But thats just it, your blinded by partisanship.


Please hold that particular mirror up to yourself.



No matter your hatred for Bush, the facts of the matter is no international laws have been broken nor any crimes committed. That the Democrat National Committee would have you believe otherwise is irrelevant, as there are numerous judges who join you in your hated for Bush and would take extraordinary glee in doing all sorts of bad things to him...if they could get away with it legally. But as nothing as nothing illegal has gone on, they can't get away with it.


What is the Democratic National Committee??? What exactly are they supposed to have told me? All I was attempting point out and the point which you have relentlessly laboured since is that a) can it be 100% categorically, assured that George Bush never joined the freemasons, and which developed into b) would George Bush be someone the Masons would want to be associated with. You say yes to both points. I think we should leave it at that as otherwise this is going nowhere, other than for you to claim I hate a man I have never even met. Just because I state that I would give him a piece of my mind ( I wouldn't actually spank him, I think its a bit late in the game for that to be an effective form of punishment) doesn't mean I would take pleasure in inflicting suffering on him, it simply means that as a I have a voice and given the opportunity I would be sure to use it and I doubt that he would come back to my lodge again. See what I mean? You're taking this way too personally. Though admittedly I could explain myself better.



Bill Clinton did actually break the law, whether you agree with the findings or not, he will forever be the 2nd President impeached by the Congress of the United States. However...he was acquitted by the Senate. As such, even though my level of dislike for Bill Clinton probably rivals your feelings towards Bush, I would still welcome Clinton as a member of the lodge. My politics stop at the lodge door, as long as no one has been convicted of anything illegal. Thats the way it should be - and if you truly read the lectures - you would get that from them. Your either perverting the lectures or ignoring the parts about harmony and brotherly love that go beyond politics.


Do you really want my opinion on Clinton, Mr and Mrs? Believe me you don't. And nor does it bear any relevance. Unless you want to change the discussion to whether Bill Clinton is a freemason. The name, Bush, Clinton, Blair, Brown it doesn't actually matter I have no preference. Or lets leave politics altogether if you like...it is not about the man's politics, religion or whatever, it is about the man's character. He may not have been proven guilty of a crime in a court of law yet, but that does not mean that there is no evidence that he has committed crimes against international law, laws that your country and mine were party to writing.


But he is NOT, so all of this is speculative.


So, perhaps I enjoy speculating and isn't that was freemasonry is too?

C'mon unstuff that shirt a little



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 06:42 AM
link   
Hi KT

Good to see you more active again in SS. Just when we needed the "voice of reason" to quell the rising tide of polarization - there you were



Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
There are some aspects of the conspiracies surrounding Masonry and the attempts to corrupt it, that do interest me. I find the Clermont degrees episode highly interesting for example,


You'll have to tell me more about this, as anything you find interesting I'm bound to also. All I know about Clermont and his Chapter is that he was part of the evolution of the Scottish Rite on the continent, and as such had very limited influence on the development of (Craft) freemasonry as a whole. I have a more global perspective on freemasonry than the average poster and am acutely aware of the relative bias towards Scottish Rite freemasonry in the US - a bias which simply doesn't exist elsewhere.


... and I find it frustrating that so few of the members on these boards, who are also masons, are willing to look at Freemasonry critically...


I know what you mean KT. Some freemasons ( and I include myself here periodically) get frustrated at some of the more outlandish posts and their seeming lack of headway with some entrenched viewpoints. There are so few people who post objectively or rationally that sensible conversation is hard to come by. Some masons do seem to get more frustrated than others though.


I would just like to talk about these things without it being assumed that everyone has an agenda.


Yeah. I know. I've even read recently here that freemasons who post on ATS are now generally assumed to be co-ordinating their efforts, due to the similarity and structure of postings. This assumption saddens me, as I know it's not happening (or if it is, they forgot to tell me about it
) - it hasn't occurred to people that there might be another reason why there is a pattern from different posters.

Sorry for the off-topic blather. Your level-headed approach and independent questioning is important and appreciated. I've cut back my time on ATS to restore some sanity, and I would recommend some others do the same. A lack of perspective is a dangerous thing.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
...Actually I do - and I'm sick of it. Totally, and utterly sick of it.]


Me too (and thanks), so much energy is expended in defending your position that nothing even get discussed. The response to my first ever post on ATS (and co-incidently the Secret Societies board) was asking me what my 'agenda' was. It's been largely unhill ever since, with a few notable but scarce exceptions. Which is why I am pleased to have you on-board, temper permitting



Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
As far as the "Clermont" references in Freemasonry, I would be quite interested to read whatcha got. A lot of pseudo-history has been perpetrated by Masons themselves on this subject, which ties into the Strict Observance, the attempted Catholic-takeover of said rite, and whole conundrum that is the Templar/Stuart Jacobite/Jesuit stream. Here's a level-headed account:


I have a very nice book by Rene Fulop-Miller on the Jesuits, it skirts over the Illuminati, but it does go into the relationship with the Freemason in some detail and the lead up to the Clermont accusations, among other run-ins. I've also got one or two books that cover the general history of the period that touch up on it. I'm out of time now but I'll dig around later and post a full response once I've read through your links.

And thanks again.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trinityman
Hi KT


Hi you too. I'm on my way out now, but had to quickly reply, because you made me smile. You've been keeping a pretty low profile yourself, you're one of the notable exceptions that I mention of in my previous posts, I do enjoy your point of view.

Gotta go though.




top topics



 
23
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join